The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

If They Just Called It A “Holiday Tree”, Would The Christmas Tree Tax Still Apply?

What do Barack Obama and atheists have in common?  Hint:  It has to do with something “real”.

Christmas, apparently, is still that most divisive time of the year.  If it isn’t misguided atheists decrying and taking the name of “Christmas” in vane, doing all they can to remove all that is Christmas, the “realness” of Christmas, from the public square, it’s Barack Obama using Christmas, its “realness” to impose yet another tax.  Obama and atheists, working in unison for a shared goal, even if their methods are diametrically opposed.  (Remember, two perpendicular lines will eventually meet.)

Thanksgiving has not yet come and gone, (in some instances the Thanksgiving turkey is, let us say, still being fattened up) and, as usual, we are already deep into the heated debate that is the Christmas holiday, or the “Holiday” holiday.  Holiday, by the way, is derived from “holy” day.  But atheists are more comfortable with that than Christmas.

The Agriculture Department, a part of the Obama Administration, wants to tax Christmas trees to pay for the board that promotes buying real Christmas trees instead of artificial Christmas trees.  A tax which, if imposed would, like all taxes in general, be passed down to the consumer.  The tax is needed, they say, because of competition from “fake” Christmas tree sellers.  And in the “spirit of Christmas”, real Christmas tree sellers want some extra cold, hard cash.  Without it, they contend, they cannot promote their real Christmas trees.  Not being able to promote their real Christmas trees, they fear, will mean more people will purchase fake Christmas trees.  And if more people buy the fake version than their real version, that will be less of that cold, hard cash in their pockets.  With less of that cold, hard cash they themselves will ultimately have less of a “Merry Christmas”.  Therefore – a “nominal” tax, they are certain, will put that “Christmas cheer” back in their pocket books.  That is, for real Christmas tree sellers, the “real” spirit of Christmas.

And now, apparently, Obama has called off the Christmas Tree tax altogether, for now.  Perhaps he was visited by one of Dickens’ ghosts, or the ghostly apparition of Joe Biden.  Still, the idea of taxing the “realness” of Christmas is something worth pondering.  because this will not be the last we hear about it.

One might wonder whether these sellers of real Christmas trees could have “gotten around” paying for the tax if they called it a “Holiday” tree instead.  After-all, calling it a “Holiday” tree is just as fake as selling a plastic tree.  And it’s the “realness” of Christmas that Obama wants to tax.  It’s also the “realness” of Christmas that has, for decades now, been at odds with some in America who continue to be offended by it.

For example:

In Wisconsin, Gov. Walker is embroiled in another major controversy.  He has decided to break the long 25 year tradition of referring to the tree that stands in the capital’s rotunda as a Christmas tree, that had, up until this year, been referred to as the “Holiday” tree – and that had, for longer than 25 years prior to 1985, been called a “Christmas” tree.  The Governor, who took on the unions earlier this year and won, is now taking on an even more massive and hotheaded group of people – atheists.

How long will it be before atheists such as those from the Freedom From Religion Foundation begin complaining?  Or American Atheists?  Or even counterfeit Christians like Barry Lynn from Americans United for Separation of Church and State?

The ‘realness” that is Christmas for scores of millions of Americans has been under assault for decades now.  While Obama tried to tax the “realness” out of Christmas, atheists who are uncomfortable with Christmas use the courts to try to remove the “realness” altogether.

The Christmas tree tax is postponed for now, but could be reenacted at any time.  Ironically, that time may come when more and more Americans begin to see, and to celebrate, the “realness” that is Christmas.  Because, after-all, the more “fake”, the more phoniness, that creeps into Christmas, the less of Christmas there actually is to tax.  This is the goal both Obama and atheists share.  And while atheists use the courts to remove all vestiges of Christmas, the “realness” of Christmas, from the “Holiday” holiday, whatever is left, whatever “realness” atheists and the courts could not scrub away, Obama will seek to tax.

The upshot to all of this?  If ever the “realness” of Christmas was completely removed from Christmas; if Christmas became 100% fake; if atheists were ever successful in making Christmas just another “holiday” – liberal politicians would still find a way to tax it, not with a Christmas tree tax, of course, but something along the lines of a “fake” tax.

Do we really need another “fake” tax?

November 9, 2011 - Posted by | Obama, politics, silly laws, taxes | , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar Logo

Please log in to to post a comment to your blog.

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.